US Chamber Of Commerce: Bollywood Is So Successful Without Strong Copyrights That It Will Fail Unless India Strengthens Its Copyrights

from the wtf? dept

The US Chamber of Commerce, the giant lobbying organization who led the fight for SOPA/PIPA, is apparently so invested in "must have stronger copyright laws" that it doesn't even bother making sense any more. It's released a bizarre statement claiming that India needs stronger copyright laws, because Bollywood is so successful. Right upfront, it notes how successful things have been:

You'd think those are signs that copyright law was working (largest film industry in the world, largest employment sectors, over 1,000 films produced annually -- about double Hollywood) and that this would imply that whatever level of copyright there is in India -- which is supposed to be an incentive to creativity -- was doing a decent job. But, no, apparently it's all broken.

The government, however, must improve national intellectual property (IP) laws and enforcement if it is going to seize on this opportunity and gain recognition in the global market and further empower local creators.

Hmm. Wait, you just said that it's the world's largest film industry and an unqualified success. So, why does it need to improve those laws and enforcement?

Specifically, Indian copyright law is unclear with the 2012 Copyright Act amendments further complicating and contradicting previous rule of law. Furthermore, the 2012 Act provides for broad exceptions that are incompatible with international norms. Also measuring relatively loware enforcement efforts, which are weak in application and don’t provide widely available civil and procedural remedies for copyright infringement.

And, yet, this laxity incentivized the creation of nearly double the films that Hollywood produces. Perhaps -- and I'm just suggesting things here -- the "international norms" and the higher levels of enforcement are holding back the industries elsewhere. If anything, this report seems to suggest that other countries should move towards broad exceptions, since it appears to have been quite successful in India.

Furthermore, much of the paper seems to suggest that India needs to fix its copyright laws to embrace the international opportunity for its films -- but that (again) makes no sense. India's IP laws don't apply outside of India, so they have no impact on the international opportunities, which are governed by other IP laws. And, again, if the industry is doing great in India (with little enforcement and greater exceptions), doesn't this indicate that India should push for the same elsewhere to better embrace that international opportunity?

It's quite a world in which the US Chamber of Commerce seems to be arguing that an example of a success story should lead to that successful model emulating less successful markets. I don't know how much money the MPAA pays the US Chamber of Commerce for these kinds of pieces, but it's not getting its money's worth.

And of course if they did adopt 'international norms' as far as copyright went, and in turn saw sales and creation take a dive, they would, without a doubt, blame piracy, rather than the stifling effects of those same IP laws they cherish so much.

Personally I'm guessing they are either trying to get rid of a competitor by bringing it down to hollywood levels, and/or get rid of a perfect example that proves that more copyright enforcement with stricter laws isn't the way to more creation and sales, and instead it's the direct opposite.

nor is anyone else, the public in particular, but no one cares anyway. as long as the US entertainment industries get their own way, fucking up as much as possible for as many as possible, it doesn't care either! one of these days someone is actually going to realise exactly what a disaster the USCoC is for everyone everywhere, including the USA, that someone is going to dismember it!

Re: Re:

Hey, Mike: India has 1,210,193,422 people! Should be FOUR times Hollywood!

If Hollywood produces half the products, then it's actually TWICE as productive as India!

Basic economics is that larger numbers of people produce more, but it's not necessarily linear, and that figure is called "productivity". What the hell did you DO in college, anyway, that missed elementary knowledge?

Re: Re: Re:

More than just jealousy

It's also Hollywood's genuine anger that there's a market that's succeeding without their control. Their globalist agenda feels incomplete when even one segment operates in a way they don't like, whether it's an irrelevant country in the middle of Africa or one of Asia's largest and most prosperous countries.

Re: Hey, Mike: India has 1,210,193,422 people! Should be FOUR times Hollywood!

By that logic, if one person produces 5 one hour films (that happen to be complete crap, but hey there was an explosion scene) every day is he more productive than all of hollywood. That might not seem right, because it's a stupid way to quantify things.

Just because you produce a turd every day doesn't make you productive or mean you produced anything of value. *sigh* I got caught in another troll trap didn't I?

Also, compare amounts of money, particularly international.

You won't of course, just vaporizes your assertions.

Perhaps Chamber of Commerce is tactfully alluding to Bollywood's low productivity and low rates of return on investment and showing how those can be brought UP. -- I'm sure to be talking over your head with that last item, since you believe that "sunk (or fixed) costs" for making movies can be totally ignored.

Re: Re: Hey, Mike: India has 1,210,193,422 people! Should be FOUR times Hollywood!

@ "Binky": "Just because you produce a turd every day doesn't make you productive or mean you produced anything of value. *sigh* I got caught in another troll trap didn't I?"
No, you just made an ass of yourself by trying to argue against sheer fact. Four times the population should -- if the simplistic measure that Mike makes is valid -- mean four times the production. It's not. Hollwood produces TWICE as much per person, roughly.

Myopic Mike bamboozled you again. You guys are pretty feeble to continue to fall for his line, when it's EASILY disproved.

The ones I found especially telling: those comments that describe firsthand how top heavy the wealth concentration is in Hollywood. Clinging to what they have and trying to get more is what drives the "leaders". In fact, they are not leading anywhere but down.

I would love to know more about the wealth and revenue distribution in Bollywood. My guess is that it is less lucrative on a per production basis, but more evenly distributed. Again a guess: since the pie is much bigger, smaller slices are just fine.

Re: OK, someone help me out here...

You forget, US government/corporate(not that there's much of a difference these days) thinking is that every country should do what the US tells them, with two of those 'suggestions' being 'never compete with US interests', and 'never make US law look bad by providing counter-examples', something that Bollywood is currently doing quite well.

Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike: India has 1,210,193,422 people! Should be FOUR times Hollywood!

Four times the population should -- if the simplistic measure that Mike makes is valid -- mean four times the production.

No, Population size has very little to do with market size. Anyone that understands even the most basic of economic principles knows that production of goods in a market is tied the the ability of that market to consume it. Excessive overproduction leads to market crashes. I don't see anywhere in the article where Mike measured India's film industry against anything. He used the only valid measure in economics; India's film industry seems to be successful and profitable at its current production levels. He used a comparison of the numbers of films produced in India vs. the number made in the US to help illustrate that point.

Question

"copyright law is unclear with the 2012 Copyright Act amendments further complicating and contradicting previous rule of law. Furthermore, the 2012 Act provides for broad exceptions that are incompatible with international norms."

WHAT NORMS?? THERE WERE/ARE no normality between most of the countries..NOT even RUSSIA acknowledges the USA copy rights..
Where is that 301 list?? THAT is the list that says WHAt countries do not accept our LAWS..

Re:

At first read, I did not to find any issues with your piece, Mike, if I may call you by your first name. However, on second read, I noticed the words "this opportunity" in the quote you pulled out of Chamber's statement. This phrase seemed unconnected with anything you quoted. So I reluctantly opened their statement myself, and lo and behold, in context, this phrase actually makes sense. This is what was omitted from your quote:

With a young population where over half a billion people are under 25 years old, Bollywood as well as Hollywood are experiencing growth that may be far outpacing the Indian economy. With an eager and growing workforce and multiplying diaspora overseas, creative content may edge its way up to be India’s greatest export.

The government, however, must improve national intellectual property (IP) laws and enforcement if it is going to seize on this opportunity and gain recognition in the global market and further empower local creators.

The opportunity is expansion into international markets. Also, the push for adoption of international norms makes sense now. Of course their statement could have absolutely no merit. This statement could be mistaken as well for some reason I can't figure out because I lack the required knowledge in the relevant laws and past precedents.

That being said, I don't think you can allow yourself to take the easy path here and simply label what they said as making no sense. So far I have read with delight your posts and your analyses generally seemed perfectly reasonable to me. I can't wait for your discussion of their actual message, and not the surely-inadvertent straw man you erected instead.

Re: Re:

"How exactly are you defining successful? Numbers?"

Yes, isn't that how you define success for American movies? Are you now moving the goalposts because the results don't match your agenda, or are you going to finally give us an objective means to measure whether something is successful?

"They're comically horrid."

Sorry, your personal tastes don't matter when assessing the output of a foreign culture. Let me guess, you're one of those people who think that your personal taste dictates everything that should be made?

They're certainly lower budget than American movies, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Most American output is crap, and there's enough people watching these things outside of India to demonstrate that there's a market even if you don't like them (e.g. Bollywood movies regularly break the top 10 in the UK, despite never being press screened or even shown outside of certain cities).

Re:

I hadn't noticed Bollywood having any issues getting into international markets where there is a strong Indian sub-continental presence - Bollywood films aren't too hard to find here in the UK, for instance, albeit I'm sure that's only a fraction of the output.

And any country producing such gems as 'Jersey Shore' cannot possibly complain about the local output of any other country!

Re: OK, someone help me out here...

Re: Also, compare amounts of money, particularly international.

Perhaps the purpose of copyright is not maximize rates of return on investment and laws should be analyzed with eye towards benefiting the public by promoting the arts and sciences. -- I'm sure to be talking over your head with that last item, since you believe copyright is some kind of inalienable natural right and the public benefits can be totally ignored.

Re: Re:

The idea that an industry is growing rapidly and that they need to change their laws to help that growth are at odds with each other. Obviously if there is rapid growth, the laws are working just fine.

I guess US Chamber's idea is that their growth would be even bigger. Considering it has long been the biggest film market in the world, whatever it's doing, it's doing it right and we should be changing our laws to match their norms.

Re:

The opportunity is expansion into international markets.

If you read a little further...

"Furthermore, much of the paper seems to suggest that India needs to fix its copyright laws to embrace the international opportunity for its films -- but that (again) makes no sense. India's IP laws don't apply outside of India, so they have no impact on the international opportunities, which are governed by other IP laws. And, again, if the industry is doing great in India (with little enforcement and greater exceptions), doesn't this indicate that India should push for the same elsewhere to better embrace that international opportunity? "

Copyrights in Bollywood

Bollywood is such a large industry and if you include whole Indian cinema you will find it like a sea never ending film making process every week many film releases it need a huge committee which works only in copyrights, and that is not possible for such large industries and if you include small film makers like short film makers then it it will cross the limits.